38 comments:

The argument that it is about freedom of speech is obviously wrong because the NFL is scared witless of a mutiny by their players. It's also politically correct. One need only reverse the races and have the white players protesting things like the mob of black teens that beat a couple and their son half to death in Chicago a few days ago to see the point. The NFL would have stoically stood down any threat of litigation from the players to thunderous applause and the same marms wagging their fingers about freedom of speech would be riffing on this instead.

Also, it's astounding how clueless they are. They seem to think that the NFL is in a good position here, when everyone else sees that the NFL is actually losing ticket sales left and right, among other things. And it hasn't even gotten started. If that is losing for the nationalist side, then I'll proudly call us a merry band of losers.

If you think this would have been their stance lre-Trump you haven't been paying attention. Had Trump not pointed out that we should not be supporting people we hate, they'd be all over the NFL for this bullshit.

Had Trump not pointed out that we should not be supporting people we hate, they'd be all over the NFL for this bullshit.

Oh, I know. That's their problem.

WWWtW went so, so all-in on the anti-Trump stuff, that they feel committed. Any times it's someone v Trump, they side with 'someone'. As we saw with Romney and company, that even means *siding with freaking antifa*.

What is that saying? Adopt the enemy's language, adopt their world view?

Even right now, progressives are busying themselves with encomia for a dirtbag misogynist like Hugh Hefner, while simultaneously preening their self-righteous #Resistance to another dirtbag misogynist, who somehow managed to win the White House.

The fact that both men were/are so thoroughly enamored of the company of beautiful women and cannot stop thinking about ways to keep them around would suggest that a pathological hatred of women is not one of their faults.

Yeah, it sure backfired on Trump. That's why Goodell sent a memo to all of the team owners asking them to make their players stand for the flag and the anthem, and even Kaepernick said that he'll happily abide by the rules if someone will give him another chance.

Proving once again that the conservative movement doesn't even know what winning would look like in theory.

Yeah, I saw that sentiment in multiple places. It's an old con: 'declare victory immediately and then pray like crazy that your opponent gives up or the whole thing just goes away'. Unfortunately, he didn't and it didn't.

But yeah. At this point victory scares conservatives. They don't know how to act when they win. Winners need to perform.

They also don't even know how to support their own. Notice that Gab has received essentially no support from these people. Castalia House never gets anything reviewed. Infogalactic never got any promotion from the same people that bemoan Wikipedia all the time.

I think it would be really funny to see W4 do a take on Schlichter vs French. I bet they'd be firmly on French's side and be shocked that an aggressive, but normie, retired infantry colonel is drawing a lot of normies away from guys like French.

I got a new job at the beginning of this year and as a result haven't had much time for blogging. I'm finally (after about 10 months) coming up for air and should be posting some new stuff soon. I'll take a look at Schlichter vs. Frnech and think about whether or not I have anything original to say.

As for this particular post, I found it kind of strange -- Paul's OP didn't really come down as pro or anti-Trump and most of the comments from the W4 editors, especially Tony's, were pro-anthem and against the protests. So I'm not sure what you are objecting to in the first place? Yes, we aren't big fans of Trump's character or style, but now that he's President, I for one am certainly glad to support him as he tries to implement conservative (hooray for Stephen Miller! nice job on Iran! hooray to an end for illegal Obamacare subsidies! Etc.) policies.

Jeff. C'mon. The OP was almost entirely an anti-Trump screed, complete with the usual insults, and the usual line about how 'there is much to protest in this land', with it being insinuated that those kneeling during the anthem were in the moral right. Lydia Lydia'd into yet more grousing about Trump. The comments involved the admin trying to make it clear how much they disliked Trump, while waxing philosophical and foggy about the right and duty to protest, all while strenuously avoiding even mentioning BLM.

Here's a thought: Trump was right. The conjecturing that Trump had 2-3 owners 'on his side' about this matter and he made some tactical error by doing the one thing they wouldn't do - speaking up about this - illustrates one of the fundamental problems of their kind of conservatism. It imagines itself as both principled and intellectual, wisely avoiding conflicts until the time is right, and strategically retreating in the meantime. Turns out 'in the meantime' is on the order of decades.

Meanwhile, Trump the Idiot finally said what so many people had been thinking, and the NFL - no doubt with many old-school conservative owners, who tried to do the wise thing and halfway gesture a 'unity and pseudo-respect but we're still protesting too' response - are faced with widespread fan abandonment. Turns out that crap's as popular now as it was during the primaries.

Yes, we aren't big fans of Trump's character or style, but now that he's President, I for one am certainly glad to support him as he

Good luck posting about those great things Trump's doing on the blog. Feel free to swing by here and vent when you're asked to no longer contribute there, if you do.

You can start with Schlichter's Townhall column. This is a good one, where he excoriates conservatives like David French for attacking people who cheered the conservative activists who stormed the stage during Julius Caesar and gave the left a taste of their own medicine (by shouting them down and drawing attention to the fact that they were enjoying a spectacle based on the murder of the sitting President).

I second Crude's characterization of the post. I think you are mistaking your own more nuanced view with the barely contained, seething contempt that the rest have for Trump. In fact, I recall seeing at least once assertions to the effect that even if Trump were to do some really good things, it would not really count because he's a bad man. I can't remember the exact way of putting it, but it was basically along the lines of "he doesn't get credit for doing good because he's often bad."

It's style over substance, and if you want to see where that leads, look at North Korea. 4 administrations of "presidential Presidents" hemmed and hawed, and now Trump has to deal with it. They were too presidential to talk the way Trump is when we had all the cards, including nukes. God help us if Kim now has the ability to pull of an EMP strike. One thing is for sure, the "presidential Presidents" won't get the blame they deserve.

I believe it was right after Trump's election. The first article they posted had a section in it to the effect of that we could give credit about anything good he accomplished to his Cabinet since he, Trump, is incapable of doing anything good, which he know 'cause he's a moron.

Yeah, and never you mind the irony that Trump is the one who appointed that cabinet. If they were any more chicken#$%^ about it, Tysons would accidentally deliver a truck full of hatchlings to their host after mistaking it for a coop.

The fact is that if Trump's actual policies were the stuff of cucks' dreams, they'd still hate his style over the substance. He could repeal Obamacare, put Cruz in RBG's slot, abolish the DoEdu, build the wall, give us a radically better tax system, national reciprocity on concealed carry and have the entire Clinton machine burned to the ground by the US DoJ, and they'd still hate him.

And that is why they are irrelevant and so many conservatives are moving toward the "alt-lite."

On the other hand, it seems like we have something is common -- we both like Schlichter! His most recent column on Salon conservatives was a masterpiece. I actually read it because J-Pod (I have a soft spot for all the neo-cons) said something nasty about it on Twitter and so I checked it out, read it, loved it and immediately added Kurt to my Twitter feed (which is where I tend to get a lot of my news these days.)

I still read plenty of people who consider themselves "Never Trump" but I find their anti-Trump stuff boring. Consider George Will. One of the greatest columnists ever and he chooses this past week to write a silly anti-Trump column that was a warmed-over attack on the alt-right. What the heck? Trump did more for conservative POLICY than he has in months in just this past week and Will chooses to go off on the alt-right in a column? It is bizarre. Will should be cheering the end of Obamacare subsidies, the pull out of UNESCO, the refusal to certify Iran, etc. I don't understand how someone of Will's intellect could bother with that column.

Anyway, Schlichter is fun and I'll keep reading him...and I'll keep reading some of Trump's critics because when they aren't talking about Trump they still have smart things to say about conservative policy and culture.

I don't understand how someone of Will's intellect could bother with that column.

Because you don't seem to realize that most #NeverTrump people were actually serious that they'd rather Clinton have won. That's the crux of the matter, really. In fact a whole lot of them went on record saying that or saying that they'd rather fight for four years and try again in 2020. It was darkly amusing when one considers that most of these "bowtied geeks" as Schlichter calls them would end up facing down a Democrat who actually has no qualms about assisted suicide via two rounds to the back of the head for her enemies.

Another thing is that these are people who just refuse to accept that their society is rapidly changing around them. David French can rant about the rule of law, for instance, but the rule of law didn't show up at Berkeley, Charlottesville, etc. where the police just stood by and let mob violence happen at the hands of black bloc protesters. The rule of law is effectively dead on most campuses that embrace the Title IX rules. Examples abound. People are sick of well-coifed and mannered politicians who won't forcefully stick up for the culture under attack, and that is why I think you are going to see Trump not only gain popularity, but his supporters get more openly antagonistic toward people like Will and French.

Some of the 'conservatives' were fakes. Talking heads who were entirely happy to be conservative when there was no chance of success, similar to how GOP people were happy to vote against Obamacare when failure was guaranteed.

A partial subset of the above: 'they're more concerned with their own careers and status than with the political and social success of a movement.' People who would gladly thwart success for all manner of right-wing legislation or cultural advances, if they couldn't claim credit for it, or if it enemy would have been responsible.

What's weird is you're acting honestly baffled that 'conservatives' hate Trump, and indeed seem to hate him so much that his successes don't matter. Indeed, his being successful at implementing anything only seems to enrage them more. Why would they do that?

Hey, I know. "They were kidding about their commitments." or "Their commitments are a distant second to their personal egos or success." George Will isn't about to cheer on Trump for standing behind Betsy DeVos as she knocks Title IX crap because Trump said he looks like an idiot who people only think is smart because of his dorky glasses. Trump *hurt his brand*, so he'll be damned if he'll let Trump's 'brand' shine.

And I think Mike is right. Do these idiots really think that Trump is just a passing phase and we'll all be eager to return to National Review style - ha ha - 'leadership'? They're out of their minds. Vox is right: conservatives conserve nothing. They couldn't even conserve conservatism in the end. We've got a better alternative now, and the collective brain-trust at National Review can now go get real jobs.

One of the reasons the old normal won't return is that it can't. The SJWs won't allow it. Pluralism is dead because our enemies freely say "there is no place for X" and damned if they aren't serious. They are not content until the scourge of X is purged from their sight and land. That is not an opposition with whom you can coexist. We have now only a choice: form them to submit or submit ourselves. And most of the right is now unwilling to choose the latter.

Thanks for engaging with me -- there is a lot I could say in response to you both, suffice it to say that I still think we don't understand the world in quite the same way. Perhaps this will prove prophetic:

"People are sick of well-coifed and mannered politicians who won't forcefully stick up for the culture under attack, and that is why I think you are going to see Trump not only gain popularity, but his supporters get more openly antagonistic toward people like Will and French."

But once again (and this has been argued to death over at W4) I don't think the choices before the American people are Trump on one side and Will on the other (leave aside French for the moment, as he's actually taken action in court on behalf of culture war conservatives.) Heck, even someone like Roy Moore (who I always liked) represents a slightly different version of someone who will stick up for the culture under attack as opposed to a secular Trump-like character. Maybe a guy like Moore can only succeed in the Deep South, but we need pockets of resistance somewhere!

Right now, Trump's approval ratings have been remarkably stable and low throughout his Presidency. Maybe it will improve, but a lot could still go wrong, so maybe it won't. Either way, as long as Trump continues to give conservatives policy victories, I'm in his corner!!

But once again (and this has been argued to death over at W4) I don't think the choices before the American people are Trump on one side and Will on the other (leave aside French for the moment, as he's actually taken action in court on behalf of culture war conservatives.)

French has also taken action on behalf of NeverTrumpers, and virtue signals left to an extreme. The right-wing resurgence we've seen is partly an explicit rejection of French's brand of 'conservatism'.

Right now, Trump's approval ratings have been remarkably stable and low throughout his Presidency.

Trump has also been the recipient of 95% negative press coverage, his own party despising him, and the media absolutely hating him. And still he hangs around 40-45% approval with likely voters.

It's also not just Trump, nor has it ever been. Frankly, Trump was just the last straw. Milo Yiannapolous, for example, was a goddamn -bold- right-winger, and still is. The sort of guy who would storm into a university and face down riots and protests.

To put that in perspective... when the topic is feminism, Frenchian conservatives will say that conservatives are the most natural feminists, why they're doing their best to diversify things over at National Review and are making a concerted effort to name more women to top editorial positions.

Milo would say that feminism is cancer, and make fun of it while offering up some brutally insightful remarks.

Guess which one resonated? In fact, which one is an actual fight, and which one is a capitulation?

Indeed, and let's recap my points: y'all ignored the fact (that I raised) that the mainstream cucks have gone after every fighter who emerged in the conservative media from Sobran to Steyn. They're not united by ideology per se, but by a common habit of boldly advancing their position and going after the left. The only people that are acceptable to the establishment are the well-coifed and mannered politicians [and pundits] who won't forcefully stick up for the culture under attack.

To put that in perspective... when the topic is feminism, Frenchian conservatives will say that conservatives are the most natural feminists, why they're doing their best to diversify things over at National Review and are making a concerted effort to name more women to top editorial positions.

Milo would say that feminism is cancer, and make fun of it while offering up some brutally insightful remarks.

Guess which one resonated? In fact, which one is an actual fight, and which one is a capitulation?

When you find yourself not only using your enemy's moral language, but arguing that you are better at it than your enemy on their own terms, you've conceded most of the battle to them. Your victory just advances their cause.

The good he did do in court is also minimal when one considers the fact that most of the battles are being fought outside of the courts. What good is winning a "free speech victory" in court against a university when the university can just shrug it off on security grounds? What good is a court order when the police won't even wade into an antifa mob and push back on behalf of the people with the permit to assemble? Nothing. As conservatives used to mock the UN's resolutions, it's just a "sternly worded letter."

So French can keep on getting sternly worded letters written to intransigent activists and politicians (and chiefs of police), but they are about as useful as a restraining order in the hands of a woman facing an ex-boyfriend who doesn't care that his name is on her magic talisman from the courts.

Once again, we reach the limits of our agreements -- but that's O.K.! We..evaluate the world differently. For example, I don't think of Milo as a "bold right-winger" (more like a degenerate, and amusing, huckster) who recently got "married" to a man!!! If that's right-wing, I'm a goat :-)

Speaking of feminism, I did a quick Google search on the topic "National Review:feminism" and the hits I got were interesting. The first article that came up was written by French and while it had one too many tips of the hat to how he's thankful for the choices women have today, he spends most of the article arguing for the fundamental difference between men and women:

There were many more articles detailing the problems with feminism -- and when an article praised some aspect of feminism, another writer came along to criticize the praise. So your example, while perhaps employing hyperbole, didn't hit the mark for me. I get the sense that it is much more a matter of style than substance for you -- you prefer the in your face, meme-war style of the alt-right rather than the old-fashioned detailed arguments of the National Review conservatives. Meanwhile, someone like Charles Murray, who can't stand Trump, also shows up on campuses to make his case and faces down riots and protests. So again, I don't think the choice is either/or -- I think thoughtful and virtuous conservatives can fight back against our sick culture.

he spends most of the article arguing for the fundamental difference between men and women:

But so what, Jeff? Acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally different is just one of the pieces, and I seriously doubt that you are ever going to see a full-throated defense of traditional Jewish or Christian patriarchy from the pages of the NRO. A man who is thankful about the state of things today when it comes to "women's choices" is expressing gratitude about the status quo with all of the baggage that entails. Ironically poll after poll shows that average female happiness is systematically eroding and has been doing so since most of these "choices" were won.

Meanwhile, someone like Charles Murray, who can't stand Trump, also shows up on campuses to make his case and faces down riots and protests. So again, I don't think the choice is either/or -- I think thoughtful and virtuous conservatives can fight back against our sick culture.

I doubt that is what Crude is referring to. Murray does not stick his finger into the eyes of the antifa and say, I will speak dammit the way Milo, Bannon and even Shapiro do. IIRC, he just happened to face down a mob, whereas the ones that Crude is talking about actually set the stage for a confrontation and tell the mob in advance they are not afraid to wade in and defend the first amendment. That is a major difference.

I get the sense that it is much more a matter of style than substance for you -- you prefer the in your face, meme-war style of the alt-right rather than the old-fashioned detailed arguments of the National Review conservatives

It is not an either-or. The problem is that the National Review sort absolutely refuse to believe that the culture war is going to be won with "all of the above." Detailed arguments are not going to win back the culture in the absence of a right wing presence in various media (books, movies, music, comic books, video games, etc.) or if we literally abandon the public square for organization because the antifa want to throw down.

For example, I don't think of Milo as a "bold right-winger" (more like a degenerate, and amusing, huckster) who recently got "married" to a man!!!

If you think Milo's "marriage" is the most shocking thing he's done, you clearly have only heard about him through third parties. You realize he routinely jokes about fucking black dudes, right? It ain't news.

More than that, here's a wild thought: when results actually come in, accusations of being a huckster doesn't mean a thing. Milo did, in fact, stand up to a wildly hostile university culture - again and again. He's stood up to riots, to BLM, to feminist activists, and more. He has inspired, he's gotten results. And when he hasn't been showing that kind of boldness, he's not only articulated good arguments in the culture war, but he's actually treated them with the lack of respect they so richly deserve. The cultural pushback we've seen against the left has largely been due to Milo and men and women like him.

In other words, I guess you're a goat. Frankly, Milo has given - and gives - more powerful arguments against LGBT actions and culture than the Respectable Right has the guts to host.

I get the sense that it is much more a matter of style than substance for you -- you prefer the in your face, meme-war style of the alt-right rather than the old-fashioned detailed arguments of the National Review conservatives.

No, Jeff. I prefer results. I have Ed Feser on my sidebar, and I've been a huge fan of his since the moment his book was in my hands. He's no alt-right meme activist. He just has powerful arguments. Among his targeted group - more intellectual people interested in philosophy - they get results.

But pivotally, his attitude also helped. He was one of the first prominent philosophers who stopped going into every argument with New Atheists by kissing their asses and talking about how smart and moral they are. He called them out for being hucksters, or wildly misinformed. He treated their arguments with the respect they deserved, which are very little.

Meanwhile, your NR friends largely tangle with feminists by whining that they're hurting women. In fact, I'd bet if you asked NR's regulars "Are you a feminist?" the answers would be split between "Enthusiastic Yeses" and "Qualified Yeses". They'd frame it that they think the feminist movement is hurting women and has 'lost its way', and basically fight feminism now by fighting for feminism as of 10 or 20 years ago. It's 'The Democrats are the REAL racists' for women, ie, 'Republicans are the REAL feminists'.

Meanwhile, someone like Charles Murray, who can't stand Trump, also shows up on campuses to make his case and faces down riots and protests.

Murray responds to protests by virtue signaling like a banshee, which is precisely why you know all about his Trump views to begin with. He bends over backwards to show off his left-wing-friendly credentials and beliefs, he tries to downplay the controversial aspects of his research. He tries to win the moral approval of centrists and moderates.

When you find yourself not only using your enemy's moral language, but arguing that you are better at it than your enemy on their own terms, you've conceded most of the battle to them. Your victory just advances their cause.

This sums it up well. The respectable right tries to 'win' against the left by becoming a lesser version of it, many times. They don't fight feminists, they say they're better feminists. They fire and attack any speakers or thinkers or even just plain citizens who the left screeches loudest about.

NR in particular is a joke, since they're famous for having fired multiple columnists because they so upset the left and they wanted to show how respectable they are. Great results for them, that strategy.

But so what, Jeff? Acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally different is just one of the pieces, and I seriously doubt that you are ever going to see a full-throated defense of traditional Jewish or Christian patriarchy from the pages of the NRO.

Ask them a question like 'Women and men are different? Okay, tell me what these differences are.' or especially 'How should these differences be acknowledged in what treatment or even expectations we have of women in the workforce, in the culture, in society at large?' They can lecture on the expectations of men, at length. Of women? Different story, except with 'warmed over feminism of the past'.

That is a major difference.

Bingo. Nailed it before I even wrote it.

There are a lot of conflicts where you cannot argue them to victory.

And bingo as well, there.

Honest to God, at this point 'conservatives' can't even defend *their own churches*. I'm Catholic - the 'agree to disagree, tolerance of other views, let's try to make peace with our liberal brethren for they are well-meaning I bet' attitude was tried. Paid off in dividends, didn't it?

Haha. For a while now I've tended to just read Ed's articles and assume that the comments section is well in hand by a combination of Ed's management and regulars. They're smart, they know the arguments - generally with more discipline than yours truly - and they can be pretty biting besides.

Frankly, I'm quiet in general in these parts. I've got my hands full with work, study and other small projects in these exciting political days. New Atheism has largely died and/or gone schismatic anyway, and Ed's star is rising beyond the level of blogs besides.

Ask them a question like 'Women and men are different? Okay, tell me what these differences are.' or especially 'How should these differences be acknowledged in what treatment or even expectations we have of women in the workforce, in the culture, in society at large?' They can lecture on the expectations of men, at length. Of women? Different story, except with 'warmed over feminism of the past'.

It would be conservative to say "society doesn't need more female doctors/engineers/powerpoint jockeys, it needs more dedicated wives and mothers rearing the next generation." Do you think you'll see the NRO say that or rather go apoplectic at the people who say it? You know the answer.

And this precisely why the Dark Enlightenment, the alt-right, etc. developed and are growing. The are PUAs--PUAs!!!--that are to the right of the NRO crowd, FFS, on many social issues including how society should go (like Roissy and Roosh frequently saying things that sound more like a 1950s reactionary than a modern liberal).

Ha. I can see a columnist saying it at NRO and promptly be fired in a great big show.

And not only that, but that alt-right and all the rest... they're effective. They're *funny*. They don't pre-emptively give up the argument by praising their opponents and acting respectful of them. They actually fight, and they encourage people. They have that Breitbart spirit where it counts.

Yeah, it seems to be just dusty. But my problem with him is that his resilience as you note will probably confuse those who possess little background in philosophy, like myself, into think he has sophisticated arguments, so I always thought trolls like him should always be refuted in order to prevent third-party confusion.

The real issue with Dusty is there's nothing there. He is literally an assertion machine - like Linton used to be, and probably about as comprehending of what he criticizes. No meat. That's why he ends up getting banned - because he just /does not stop/ and the only way to really deal with him is to just keep answering him. Forever.

Hopefully Ed will just axe him, especially as his profile rises. I'm so glad to see his writings get wider circulation.

That's the thing. He seems to understand some A-T terminology like changer being the actualization of a potential, but other times he rants like a know-it-all, saying how reading Feser's books is just money making scheme and all that. I hope he doesn't come over on your blog and craps up the comm box here.

Well, Ben Shapiro has formally aligned himself with the faction that is totally down with demographic replacement so long as they have "the right beliefs." Which we know they won't because no "brown country" has a culture that has a high degree of compatibility with our own Anglo-derived values. So it's a net loss across the board.

It must be really, really hard to admit that on balance I was more right about these things than "Jeff's colleagues." I actually think that if there were an open debate, a lot of the leaders of neoreaction and the alt-west would wipe the floor with them.